Rush To Judgment

I liked Zev Chafets' profile of Rush Limbaugh for The New York Times Magazine, but I knew the story wasn't over until we heard from the readers, who aren't used to Rush being treated sympathetically. Well, the letters are in, and they don't disappoint.

We start with a professional Rush hater, Eric Burns of Media Matters. He seems to imply the feature failed because it didn't show Rush is a racist (and homophobe). Now you'd think an organization that makes this accusation would have some evidence to back it up, but their examples are pretty lame. They all involve Rush mocking liberal stances on race and gays--the mockery might be stupid, crude or wrong, but hardly prove the charge of bigotry. Perhaps Burns is only claiming Rush uses inflammatory language, but if that's all he wants to say, then I'd guess Rush would agree with him.

The next letter is so weird I have to quote it in full:

Those who demonize The New York Times as an overwhelmingly liberal pinko broadsheet would have this myth dispelled by Chafets’s piece. I came away with a far better understanding of Limbaugh, his beliefs and who he is than I might ever hope to read elsewhere. Chafets’s evenhandedness is typical of the liberal Democratic approach, which often appeals to reason rather than resorting to smear campaigns, invective, near-slander and appeals to more base instincts.

So there you have it--all it takes is one piece to prove whether or not the Times is biased, and, while we're at it, we see that liberals, unlike their opponents, are rational and fair.

A letter further down claims that life is miserable in the South because Rush's dittoheads have taken over--a generation of zombies who get their marching orders from his radio show. Yep, I guess there are a lot of conservatives in the South. The letter writer should either learn to live with it, try to talk to them--they might be more open than he thinks--or move to where the zombies are liberals. (Oops, I forgot, only conservatives have knee-jerk opinions.)

The next letter comes from a "woe is me" liberal who says the trouble with her side in the past has been they're too nice, and let conservative lies take over, but now with Obama things are finally changing. It's amazing how popular this nonsense is (on both sides). The Democrats have little trouble getting their message out, and are just as good attacking as the Republicans are--maybe, just maybe, when they lose, as they sometimes do, it's because the people honestly don't agree with them. The letter also repeats the legend of the Swift Boat ads--as if the maintream media didn't jump all over the claims (at least the controversial ones) and as if the public believed everything it heard (polls at the time showed the vast majority didn't believe the tougher charges).

Next comes a must-quote-missive about the cover photo (not the one on the right, but pretty close):

Through what could be labeled the Face of Evil, we are shown clear evidence of unbridled narcissism, rampant greed, self-indulgence, crafty conservatism, pomposity, defiance, contempt, oral gratification and distressing taste in neckties. They are all there as well as the manicured, baby-bottom-soft hands that attest to an abhorrence of any form of manual labor.

Yet another demonstration of how rational and fair liberals are.

One reader, a bit too smug, writes: "I look forward to hearing him ratchet up the nastiness as the election approaches; gratified there is nothing he can do about the outcome." Funny, I thought a lot of people thought Rush's "Operation Chaos" helped Hillary beat Obama in some major states when she looked washed up. However much influence Rush has (not too much, I'd guess), it's probably as great as it's ever been. If the election is very close, he could conceivably make a difference.

Another letter says Limbaugh is an opportunist--he'd be a liberal if the money were there. Considering he helped blaze a trail at a time when there was more money in media if you were a liberal (probably still true), I doubt this very much. He's an entertainer first, but, like Ann Coulter, while there may be a bit of comic exaggeration, he believes what he says.

The last letter claims Rush is a relativist because he argues "experts" are too easily influenced by their ideology, but, alas, never examines his own side with the same scrutiny. Anyway, I think that's the argument--it's from a professor of law, so the writing isn't that clear.